On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:16:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I'm also not very happy with the wording of supermajority. It's > > not really defined what it means, but is used. For instance > > 4.1.5.3 talks about a "3:1 majority" and not about a > > supermajority. I will probably translate this to if N > 1 > > for use in devotee. > > Please do feel free to suggest improvements to the wording. I want > this to be clear and unambiguous. > > How about if we s/supermajority/majority/ in what I just proposed ?
No, that's clear at all. The 1:1 majority would fall under that too. How about something where N > M? > > > For the avoidance of any doubt, this change does not affect any > > > votes (whether General Resolutions or votes in the Technical > > > Committee) in progress at the time the change is made. > > > > This also means that either all votes will start and stop at the > > same time, or the next one will have to wait until this vote is > > over. I don't want to run 2 instances of devotee. > > How you implement this is up to you, I think, but 1. clearly it would > be wrong to have a GR which affected the rules for a vote currently in > progress and 2. we don't want to hold the whole lot sequentially. > > Certainly we would like to run all the votes concurrently. So just make you call for vote for all of them during the same week. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120709172652.ga22...@roeckx.be
